Tennessee Passes Legislation to Criminally Prosecute Drug-Addicted Pregnant Women

[Deleted User] · April 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Wine&Cupcakes · April 2014

fredalina said:
I was going to say I also thought it was already in effect. I guess it was when DD was born and they changed it later?

I don't really know how I feel about it, to be honest. The part about jailing women or forcing them into rehab while pregnant I do not like because:

1) It is a slippery slope to scary views of women as incubators without rights. In Brazil a woman was just forcefully detained and given a Caesarian because she wanted to attempt a VBAC after 2 previous caesarians and the baby was breech. Her intent was to hope the baby turned or could be turned and go to hospital if needed but they stole that right for her by chaining her to a bed and giving her major surgery "for the good of the baby."
2) It really will encourage women not to seek prenatal care. I know that to be true from my experiences as a foster mom.

After the birth, if the baby is born addicted, then criminal charges are appropriate. It COULD increase home births but I doubt it would by much. IME as a foster parent and hearing other stories, it doesn't seem those charges were very often placed. In fact I heard of a lot of babies born addicted and not one woman criminally charged. So I think it would have to be VERY bad for such charges to be brought in reality (like death of the baby, severe birth defects, etc). I doubt some mild to moderate withdrawal symptoms would result in much real action.

I thought for sure this was automatic. Until I did my L&D rotation on a floor with 4 babies undergoing treatment for addiction. A couple were methadone, where there are no charges since theoretically, the mother is trying to fight her addiction and is being overseen.

Then there are the babies born severely addicted. One baby there was born very addicted to heroin and had already been in the nursery for two months. I asked the nurse and she said she has seen kids remain in L&D for up to seven months with severe addiction given the process of transferring the baby to methadone and slowly weaning (however I didn't see this, it was from her mouth). Parents weren't charged under the premise it is better for them to seek help and raise their baby than lose it. I do know the parents stopped showing up at some point and DSS told them to show up or or ship out. I'm unsure what the consequences would be for them at that point.

All I could think was how the baby, born addicted, spending several months under-stimulated in the hospital and then being raised against these poor environmental factors would impair development. Me thinks it would hinder him significantly.

I would spend hours holding that little guy as his heart rate routinely spiked. We just cradled and cuddled him. But obviously, he wasn't going to get any social interaction, movement or education that an infant should, nor could he physically handle it. Poor little guy :-( the cards were stacked against him (and the others) since day 1.

DebateThis · April 2014

I agree with Fred. The only thing I'd like to mention is that the Brazil scenario where pregnant women have been forced against their will to have cesareans or been arrested for endangering her fetus has also already happened (multiple times) in the United States. This is yet another way to limit choice and I do not support it in any way.

theholmanherd · April 2014

My mil runs a daycare and she gets a lot of foster kids. Lots of them were taken at birth because they were positive for drugs. I still think the moms should be charged at that point.

[Deleted User] · April 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User] · April 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Jags8 · April 2014

wife07mom09 said:
I hesitate to even comment but I find it interesting how some are so interested in ensuring positive outcomes for infants born yet also support the right to kill those same infants a few weeks before.

Of course you do. (:|

I'm in the same boat as WCIBN. Sounds good in theory, but I feel like it could make things worse when actually in practice.

Mysterious_wife · April 2014

wife07mom09 said:
I hesitate to even comment but I find it interesting how some are so interested in ensuring positive outcomes for infants born yet also support the right to kill those same infants a few weeks before.

Rainbow is that you?

Wine&Cupcakes · April 2014

AudeSapere89 said:
Im afraid this will lead to women hiding their pregnancy, giving birth and then throwing/abandoning their newborn so they dont face jail time.

Edit: spelling

When assessing a brand new baby, I noted an incredibly high respiratory and heart rate and determined we needed to do a better assessment (and alerted MD). Mom panicked and discharged herself against medical advice just at the notion that we thought something was off (didn't mention drugs). I'm assuming the baby was born addicted but since she didn't submit to blood test or further exam, nothing was proven and she peaced out.

Such a slippery slope, indeed as people have mentioned to balance rights. However - maybe someone else would know - I wonder what the rate of prenatal care is for an addicted mother anyways? If it's low, being subjected to criminal persecution and the fear of obtaining prenatal treatment may not lower treatment rates much, if at all? Thoughts on this?

DebateThis · April 2014

wife07mom09 said:

I hesitate to even comment but I find it interesting how some are so interested in ensuring positive outcomes for infants born yet also support the right to kill those same infants a few weeks before.

This? This is the ignorant bullshit that you need to keep to yourself. I don't "support the right to kill infants". Terminating a pregnancy in the second or third trimester is nearly always because of terminal prenatal diagnosis (not for funsies or just because someone wants to kill her child, as you seem to think) and I support a woman's right to make a compassionate decision for her child and her family. You seem to lack basic compassion and basic education, so please, STFU. Shame on you.

DebateThis · April 2014

wife07mom09 said:

DebateThis said:

wife07mom09 said:

I hesitate to even comment but I find it interesting how some are so interested in ensuring positive outcomes for infants born yet also support the right to kill those same infants a few weeks before.

This? This is the ignorant bullshit that you need to keep to yourself. I don't "support the right to kill infants". Terminating a pregnancy in the second or third trimester is nearly always because of terminal prenatal diagnosis (not for funsies or just because someone wants to kill her child, as you seem to think) and I support a woman's right to make a compassionate decision for her child and her family. You seem to lack basic compassion and basic education, so please, STFU. Shame on you.

there is no shame on me. I apologize if my blunt words struck a nerve. (use the ignore button, I do) There are multifactorial issues that go into making these decisions but a life is still a life and I can choose to support that life. You can choose to disagree but I do not agree in any form with terminating for these sort of things. I know much more about this than you seem to think but regardless, you won't find any mother who regrets any time spent with her newborn be it born sleeping or minutes spent before the baby passed away.

Seriously? You absolutely do not know the minds and hearts of women in those shoes. How dare you ASSume to know the pain those mothers are feeling and ASSume what they'd want to do with a terminal prenatal diagnosis. I know two women very well who had to make that choice and neither of them chose to see their children. I know lots of others who've been in the agonizing position of wondering each and every day if the baby they were carrying was suffering - so no, don't fucking tell me that moms should have to carry babies to term just so they can see them and hold them once. How selfish.

LnR70707 · April 2014

wife07mom09 said:

DebateThis said:

wife07mom09 said:

I hesitate to even comment but I find it interesting how some are so interested in ensuring positive outcomes for infants born yet also support the right to kill those same infants a few weeks before.

This? This is the ignorant bullshit that you need to keep to yourself. I don't "support the right to kill infants". Terminating a pregnancy in the second or third trimester is nearly always because of terminal prenatal diagnosis (not for funsies or just because someone wants to kill her child, as you seem to think) and I support a woman's right to make a compassionate decision for her child and her family. You seem to lack basic compassion and basic education, so please, STFU. Shame on you.

there is no shame on me. I apologize if my blunt words struck a nerve. (use the ignore button, I do) There are multifactorial issues that go into making these decisions but a life is still a life and I can choose to support that life. You can choose to disagree but I do not agree in any form with terminating for these sort of things. I know much more about this than you seem to think but regardless, you won't find any mother who regrets any time spent with her newborn be it born sleeping or minutes spent before the baby passed away.

STFU...you are a disgusting narrow-minded twat.

[Deleted User] · April 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Mysterious_wife · April 2014

I can't even...

Meery82 · April 2014

wife07mom09 said:

DebateThis said:

wife07mom09 said:

I hesitate to even comment but I find it interesting how some are so interested in ensuring positive outcomes for infants born yet also support the right to kill those same infants a few weeks before.

This? This is the ignorant bullshit that you need to keep to yourself. I don't "support the right to kill infants". Terminating a pregnancy in the second or third trimester is nearly always because of terminal prenatal diagnosis (not for funsies or just because someone wants to kill her child, as you seem to think) and I support a woman's right to make a compassionate decision for her child and her family. You seem to lack basic compassion and basic education, so please, STFU. Shame on you.

there is no shame on me. I apologize if my blunt words struck a nerve. (use the ignore button, I do) There are multifactorial issues that go into making these decisions (edited that are heartbreaking) but a life is still a life and I can choose to support that life. You can choose to disagree but I do not agree in any form with terminating for these sort of things (edited) those are my feelings that won't be disregarded.

I know much more about this than you seem to think (and won't have a I know more contest with you) but regardless, you won't find a mother who regrets any time spent with her newborn.
(edited)

I stand by my thoughts. I am giving them to you in a respectful manner. The name calling and cursing is wholly inappropriate and I wont respond to any of it. you have been reported and ignored. I will be happy to respond to respectful conversations.

Yeah, I've got to agree with PPs. You are disgustingly offensive and ignorant. Fuck off.

Want a personalized experience?

Tennessee Passes Legislation to Criminally Prosecute Drug-Addicted Pregnant Women

Re: Tennessee Passes Legislation to Criminally Prosecute Drug-Addicted Pregnant Women

DX (me): Inborn error of metabolism - protein restriction, metabolic formula & weekly blood tests

DNA Results (7/1): DH is NOT a carrier for my genetic disorder!

7/3: Metabolic clinic gave the green light to TTC - holy crap!

DX (me): Inborn error of metabolism - protein restriction, metabolic formula & weekly blood tests

DNA Results (7/1): DH is NOT a carrier for my genetic disorder!

7/3: Metabolic clinic gave the green light to TTC - holy crap!

Choose Another Board

Search Boards